The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1887-04-27
Married WunIcn's Contracts.

The case of Aultman, Taylor Co. VS..
). \. Rush and l@rgcnia j. Rush, in
which the Supreme Court filed its dc.
cision last Wednesday night, is very i'm
portant III It's bearing upon the liabilities
OF married women. The Columbia corrc-
spondencc of the News and Courier gives
the following synopsis of the opmion
The action was founded on two notes
given by defendant and his wife for the
purchase of a steam engine. These notes
were secured by a mortgage on n tract
OF land belonging to the separate estate
of tho wife, which mortgage was exc
cutcd by the wife, her husband Joining
therein. Two dcfcnces were put up
First, breach OF contract; second, no
liability on the part of the wife on the
notes and mortgage, She being mar
ricd woman. The master in equity, TO
whom the case was referred, rcDOrtcd
that there was no breach of the contract
/ this report the Circuit Judge (Hud-
SOM oconcurred. The master also re-
ported the defendants wife liable, both
by the terms of the statute and because
the contract was for the benefit OF her
separate estate. The Circuit Judge did
not concur in the last branch Of this sec
ond section of the report, but sustained
the mastcl IN the first, holding that the
liability of the wife was fixed by the
mortgage, and he ordered u foreclosure
The Supreme Court says: "rhe main
question iii the case is as to the liability
OF the wife on her mortgage, or rather
the Inability OF her separate estate for Il
debt contracted by her husband, to
which she was II party, and to secure
which she Xccuted the mortgage in
question, although the said debt was not
contracted for the benefit of her separate
estate. This brings up squarely the
question whether n married wont can
mortgage her separate estate for debt
not contracted for its benefit.
The boundary of the question is the
Constitution and the Act of the Legisla-
turc upon the subject of the rights Of
married women" The Court then pro-
ceeds to examine ut length the constitu-
tlonal provisions contained in Article
Ia, Section 9, as follows: "rhe real and
personal property of Il married woman
held at the time OF her marriage, or that
which she may thereafter acquire either
by gilt, grant, inheritance, devise or
otherwise, shall not be subject to levy
and sale for her husbands debts, but
shall be held as her separate property
and may be bcqueathed, devised or
alienated by her the same rs if she were
unmarried" The provisions of law
touching upon this question are also ex-
haustlvely discussed and the Court de-
cides that the married woman has not
he right to mortgage her separate estate
for debt not contracted for it's benefit.
The Judgment of the Supreme Court is
that the Judgment OF the Circuit Court
be reversed and that case be remand
ed with leave to plaintiff to apply below
for judgment against tho defendant, j..
N. Rush, for the amount due on the
note. Chief Justice Simpson delivered
the opinion. Justice McIver files dis
senting opinion.
The practice of having wifes sepa-
rate estate mortgaged to secure her hus-
Dands depts mas been very prevalent in
South Carolina and this decision will
upset it abruptly.
---------aAaIe -tlr.u-------.-.